awindsor

<p>I have the three lenses (though I have the non-IS 70-200). I a thinking of upgrading to the 70-200/4 IS. If I had to ditch one it would be the 17-40/4L.</p>

<p>Actually my pick from the current group of AF zoom lenses would be the Tamron 200-500 lens. It is lighter than the Sigma 50-500.<br>

Both the Sigma and the Tamron are slow lenses at the long end. This is not as terrible as it once would have been since higher ISO capture is quite clean on the DSLRs. In the days of film ISO 400 was very fast film for a wildlife photographer.<br>

For most wildlife photography you will need to tripod mount these lenses.<br>

The next challenge is that I expect neither of these lenses will focus particularly rapidly (I have not used the Tamron lens). Not a problem for wildlife photography in general but it is a problem for photographing birds in flight. Check out<br>

http://www.birdsasart.com/<br>

His recommendation is for the 400/5.6L lens as a flight lens. I have the 300/4L and often use the 1.4x TC. The combination is optical fine but slow to focus. It does focus quite closely which lets you focus on small mammals and birds. The 400/5.6 does not focus very closely but its autofocus is fast and reliable and you can use servo focusing successfully.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan,<br>

I whole heartedly agree with that. It is interesting to compare sensor technology though. My 5D mk II has almost exactly the same pixel pitch and per pixel noise as my 20D. Of course all the extra pixels mean that for a given print size not only does it give better sharpness but also gives me a 2 stop advantage in noise. I now shoot my available light jazz shots at ISO 3200 and still get lower noise output than I got from my 20D at ISO 1600.<br>

For me noise was the decision driving the update. The first shots I got off the camera immediately validated my agonizing decision.</p>

<p>Another knock against the 70-300/4-5.6 is the speed of its autofocus. A similar comment applies to the suggestions of using an extender. I don't shoot sports but I use the 300/4 + 1.4x extender a lot and I would not trust it to track a running back. Especially if you are shooting night games I would suggest the 70-200/2.8. Even with the crop factor that will be a little short if you are shooting from the stands. If you go to ebay or the used sections of camera stores you should be able to find a used version of the less expensive non-IS model.<br>

Unfortunately if you are shooting from the stands you are into the crazy expensive primes and restricted viewing angles. It might be better to put away the camera and enjoy the game.</p>

<p>I got mine on Thursday from Adorama. They were showing out of stock but had "In Tranist to our Warehouse". I called in the order and got one shipped out the next day. Ordering via salesman rather than online resulted in me ending up with 2 SD cards rather than 2 CF card but Adorama's customer service is excellent and they sent me a shipping label to mail the cards back.</p>

<p>You don't say what your camera is but I am guessing it is a crop factor camera. If that is the case then for less than $700 you could get<br>

$150 Canon 18-55 IS (unless this is the one you already have)<br>

$255 Canon 55-250 IS<br>

and of course the<br>

$70 50/1.8. <br>

I am one of those people that finds a 50mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera particularly dull. However the 50/1.8 on my 20D (a crop factor camera) I used it all the time for portraiture. Much of my jazz photography was taken with the 50/1.8<br>

The 70-300 is a very good lens. I don't own it but only because it was not available when I bought my medium telephoto. It is a full frame lens. By going with a crop factor lens you get a smaller cheaper package since the lens is designed only to produce an image for your small sensor.</p>

<p>I often use my 70-200/4 with extension tubes for butterflies and for flowers. I have a macro lens but like the extra working distance the longer focal length gives me.</p>

<p>I have posted about this a few times. One solution is to switch to a 50/1.8. It focuses more consistently than the 50/1.4.<br>

Puppy face, I know that you own the 135/2.8 SF lens. How is it at focusing in low light?</p>

<p>You can shoot with a macro lens without a tripod (and I say this as an inveterate tripod user). I have never had much success shooting bugs with a tripod. There are three tricks; use at least f11 to maximize depth of field (you are sacrificing a bit of sharpness to diffraction here but you need the DOF more), use a flash, shoot a lot, and be prepared to delete most of your images.<br>

I set the lens to 1:1 (manual focus) and then rock backward and foward so that the focal plane shifts across the object.<br>

The flash is crucial. At f16 and a moderate ISO ambient light is not going to matter. That is good. There is no way you could handhold the camera steady at 1:1 magnification anyway. The flash burst is going to be very short and you can handhold the camera steady for that brief instant. <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3965251-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="485" /><br>

If you are shooting flowers then by all means break out the tripod, they tend not to walk away. Personally I use a 70-200/4 and extension tubes for flowers to get more working distance.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200/4 non-IS and it is a great lens. I probably would have purchased the 70-300 IS lens or the 70-200/4 IS had either been available since I agree that IS is invaluable in a telephoto lens. I tried the 70-200/2.8 IS but found it heavier than I was comfortable with (and I have a selection of fast primes for portraiture).<br>

You don't say what you want to photograph. If you want to photograph rapidly moving subjects then the 70-200/4 has faster autofocus. I will eventually replace my 70-200 with the IS version. IS really is invaluable.<br>

Optically the 70-200/4 is very slightly better but both a very decent. You can add an extender to the 70-200/4L to get of the extra reach of the 70-300 without giving up much sharpness (especially on your crop factor camera) but AF speed suffers markedly.<br>

I guess I would lean towards the 70-300 IS unless you need AF speed. For most people the extra reach and IS outweighs the slight edge in sharpness, faster AF, and better sealing of the 70-200/4.<br>

The 70-200/4 is almost as light as the 70-300 IS but it is no where near as compact. The 70-200/4 is 172mm long while the 70-300 IS is only 143mm long. Thus the 70-300 is easier to pack and that is before you consider the huge hood of th 70-200.</p>

<p>There is no easy way to this on a 5D. Yes it does have a separate shutter from the mirror. All DSLRs have both a mirror and a shutter. The LiveView cameras certainly have the ability to lock open the shutter, lift the mirror, and read the sensor. I am not sure that they are set up to keep the sensor uncovered for long periods of time and read it only occasionally.<br>

It sounds like you would be better off with a compact digital camera with no mechanical shutter.<br>

If you are doing long time elapses with relatively short intervals then shutter actuations mount up really fast. Shooting a photo every second for a day will probably kill your shutter in a single day and certainly in two days. That is an extreme example but you get the idea.</p>

<p>In case someone other than John arrives at this 2 year old thread I will mention that this predated Canon's "new" (hey the thread is 2 years old) kit lens: the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 I. This would now be my hands down recommendation for a walk around lens on a budget. </p>

Go to a camera store and try these. Both are reasonably hefty lenses.

 

I use the 70-200/4L and a 300/4L IS. I would get a 70-400/4L IS these days but I bought mine before the IS version was available. I have not found the f4 limitation a problem with digital even in shadowed forest paths. With film my fastest color film was ISO 100 but now I happily shoot at higher ISO (much of my very low light jazz work is shot at ISO 1600).

 

You will definitely appreciate the longer reach of the 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS over the 70-200/2.8 IS for wildlife and were I to choose between those lenses for wildlife I would choose the 70-400/4.5-5.6 IS.

 

I use a flash and flash extender. It helps put sparkle in the eyes of the animals.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6908147

I had my camera bad decelerate from 40 miles an hour to a complete stop in the space of about 3 feet. The camera and all contents were undamaged. Unfortunately I was in the seat next to them and suffered the same deceleration with some unfortunate effects. I was wearing my UV filters. Guess my parents should have had an L-series son rather than some cheap consumer model. Luckily the damage was mostly cosmetic.

I just wrote an answer to Mike's question about travel kit that basically read "Ditch the 70-200/2.8 IS for one of the 70-200/4 versions". I don't think there is much to pick between them on image quality, all the tests I have seen show the f4 versions as being very slightly sharper. Obviously the f2.8 is an f2.8 lens so if you really need the additional speed for fast shutter speeds for sports or concerts or shallow DOF then it is the only choice. I would add a 1.4x extender to your list of lenses. It performs extremely well on my 70-200/4.

 

Consider the 24-70/2.8 as an alternative to the 24-105/4 unless you will also have fast primes.

 

Finally I would caution against the 17-40 if you plan on shooting near wide open. The edges are atrocious unless you stop down to at least f8.

I would go with a 50D with the 17-55/2.8 IS, 70-200/4 IS, 50/1.4 (actually I have a 50/1.8) and a 1.4x extender. Light and flexible. Obviously you can substitute the 30D for the 50D but probably should go with the 5D plus 12-24 and 24-105/4 IS. Your long zoom is the problem. When I was in the market for a 70-200 I tried both the 70-200/2.8 and the 70-200/4 and went with the 4. The reason was weight. Either buy or rent one of the 70-200/4 versions.

 

Bags are a very personal choice, one of the few things I still go to a store to buy, but people tell me very nice things about the Lowepro Slingshot bags.

 

Strangely I want a fast normal lens more than a fast long lens. With the long lens you normally want speed to achieve a fast shutter speed. Here IS and digital's wonderful high ISO capture come to your rescue. With a normal lens you want the extra speed for shallow DOF to isolate your subject.

 

Ditch the hyperzooms. The Canon is about as good as a hyperzoom gets but you are better off with the 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x extender. For walking around the streets I often use the 70-200/4 + 1.4x extender. I have a 300/4 IS but I only use it when I anticipate shooting wildlife - it is not part of my regular walk around kit.

 

Out of interest how does the 12-24 perform on the 5D. Anything wider than 17mm gives me horrors with composition.

Unless you are sure that you want to be tied to a tripod I would not get a long lens without IS. Photographers used to make great images without IS and people used to cook great food on wood fired stoves. IS, or a gas stove, are much more convenient and make taking great images, or cooking great food, easier.

 

The 300/4 IS was what I went with. I use it with a 1.4x fairly often. It is not a part of my walk around kit. I use my 70-200/4L and a 1.4x as my long lens in my walk around kit.

I don't really like the Canon 17-40/4L as a walk around lens on a crop factor camera. I have one and I use it for this purpose but not happily. It is both too slow and too short for a standard zoom.

 

Compared to the Tamron and Sigma xx-55 lenses you would probably be happier with the EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS. It is slower at the long end and not that much longer but does have IS but is optically very good and it is cheap. Actually the 18-55 kit lens is actually sharper than the 17-40/4L at almost all focal lengths and apertures though it exhibits much more vignetting.

 

The Sigma 17-70 is definitely better than the Canon 17-85 which I did not like at all (a pity since I really liked the 28-135).

Remember that there is only one plane of focus. Everything else is out of focus to a greater or lower degree. At f7.1 the softness you are observing is most likely due to depth of field considerations.

You would be better off exposing to the right and then applying digital exposure compensation. When you go to lighten the deep shadows you are dealing with very few bits and thus you get noise and banding. If instead you expose to the right and the selectively darken you give yourself more bits to work with and avoid the banding problem.

 

When you say banding do you mean horizontal banding from the sensor structure or posterization which appears as large areas of the same color?

 

How minor are your contrast and exposure changes? Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?

It travels across the short side of the frame. That is why it is called an electronically-controlled <b>vertical-travel</b> focal plane shutter.

>I'm more interested in properly recording a dark scene as my eye perceives it, with the shadow details in place.

 

Unfortunately the eye is a tricky beast. It does not record in the same manner as a camera. Your eye applies different exposure to differently lit portions of what you see. Consequently it perceive a much larger dynamic range than even the best digital cameras. Looking round the room I can see my backyard out the rear window. However were I to take a photo I know that to correctly expose the dim interior I would have to blow out the window.

 

There are various post capture adjustments that can open up the shadows. Some digital cameras do this on board (for JPGs).

A 50/1.8 mk II is optically identical to the 50/1.8 mk I though obviously the mk I had a distance scale and a metal mount. The 50/1.8 mk II is inferior to the 50/1.4 at f 1.8 though neither are anything to write home about.

If you are shooting at a static spot then there are large diffuser panels you can put overhead to soften the light. If you have an assistant or are in a static location then I find reflectors better than a flash for providing fill light.

 

If you use flash you will require a strong flash since you will either be using a small aperture (ugh) or a fast shutter speed. A fast shutter speed mean high speed sync which robs the flash of power.

Increasing your ISO or the aperture you are shooting at will decrease the output of the flash. This will enable faster recycling and lower heat buildup. What sort of shutter speeds are you using? Some lighting has very distinct phases and you get different colors depending on what part of the phase you capture. Setting your shutter speed to capture a number of complete cycles lets you get reasonably consistent white balance. This is not normally a problem with tungsten lighting but can be a big problem with fluorescent lights.